Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2009, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 5, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107. That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, All Florida was a Florida corporation engaged in the business of well drilling for water, a construction business, with its principal office located at 2250 Havana Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. On August 3, 2010, Amy Thielen (Ms. Thielen), a compliance investigator for the Department, conducted an on-site investigation at a work site located at 129 Montrose Street, Fort Myers, Florida. Ms. Thielen observed a parked truck with the All Florida logo on it at this work site and an individual working nearby. After identifying herself to the individual, the individual identified himself as Edward Perez (Mr. Perez), an employee of and working for All Florida at that time. Ms. Thielen then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine if All Florida had workers' compensation coverage. The insurance companies report any workers' compensation coverage to the Department through this CCAS database, which is kept current. The CCAS showed that All Florida had two periods in which its workers' compensation coverage lapsed: March 3, 2009, through October 24, 2009, and a second period when the workers' compensation policy was cancelled from January 9, 2010, to August 3, 2010. Ms. Thielen contacted All Florida's last workers' compensation carrier and was informed that there was no workers' compensation policy in place. There was no workers' compensation coverage in effect on August 3, 2010, when Ms. Thielen confirmed that Mr. Perez was working for All Florida. Ms. Thielen testified that any construction company could obtain an exemption from having workers' compensation coverage through an application to the Department. All Florida did not have an exemption for any corporate officers.2/ Ms. Thielen checked the Department of State, Division of Corporations', records and learned that Robert Henshaw (Mr. Henshaw) was the president and only officer of All Florida. Based on her investigation, Ms. Thielen determined that All Florida did not have the requisite workers' compensation coverage at that time. After consulting with her supervisor, Ms. Thielen issued a Stop-Work Order to All Florida on August 11, 2010. A stop-work order is an enforcement action issued against employers that forces the employer to cease all business operations in Florida until they obtain the requisite workers' compensation coverage and return to full compliance. At the time Ms. Thielen served All Florida with the Stop-Work Order, she also served a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation to All Florida. This document requests certain business records from the employer for a three-year period in order for an audit to be performed to properly calculate the penalty assessment. All Florida produced the requested business records to the Department. Melissa Geissler (Ms. Geissler), a penalty calculator for the Department's Bureau of Compliance, calculated the penalty assessment based on All Florida's business records. Based on a review of the produced business records, the initial penalty assessment was $18,216.73. On September 8, 2010, Mr. Henshaw, acting on behalf of All Florida, executed a "payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty" with the Department. Mr. Henshaw paid ten percent of the penalty assessment, put the remainder of the penalty assessment in a payment plan, and obtained the requisite worker's compensation coverage. The Department then issued an "Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order," thus allowing All Florida to continue to operate while paying the remaining penalty assessment in specific increments. After the original penalty assessment order was issued, All Florida submitted additional business records, and the Department sought to and did revise the penalty assessment amount downward. As the case was already at the Division, the Department, with All Florida's consent, requested that a second amended order of penalty assessment be issued, reducing the penalty amount to $13,267.24. On October 20, 2010, the Division issued an Order allowing the second amended order of penalty assessment to be issued. In April 2011, after still more business records were delivered to the Department, the Department issued a third amended order of penalty assessment. This time the penalty assessment was reduced to $12,721.73. On August 24, 2011, the Department filed a motion to amend order of penalty assessment. There was insufficient time for All Florida to respond to the motion, and, at hearing, All Florida, through its president, Mr. Henshaw, voiced no objection to the reduction in the penalty assessment amount. Ms. Geissler's duties at the Department include reviewing financial documentation from employers, identifying payroll transactions, and verifying workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Geissler testified that she utilizes the CCAS database to confirm whether any employer has secured workers' compensation coverage. When she finds a payroll transaction that reflects such coverage, that transaction is not used in the penalty assessment calculation; otherwise, the transaction is used in calculating the coverage cost amount. Ms. Geissler also testified that she utilizes the penalty worksheet authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to aid in the penalty calculation process. Ms. Geissler conducted an audit of All Florida based on the business records it provided to the Department. Ms. Geissler determined the amount of workers' compensation premium that All Florida would have paid had it been in compliance with Florida law between August 12, 2007, and August 11, 2010 (excluding October 25, 2009, through January 8, 2010, when there was coverage). Ms. Geissler testified that, during this three-year period, All Florida was an active construction based employer. It was confirmed that there were four employees (including Mr. Henshaw) of All Florida. In order to calculate the appropriate penalty, Ms. Geissler took 1/100th of the gross payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to class code 6204 (the class code designated to specialist contractors engaged in drilling work as found in the approved Scopes Manual3/). The approved manual rates are determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, adopted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and represent the recent trends in workers' compensation loses associated with each individual class code. After reviewing all of the business records submitted by All Florida, and using the applicable formula, Ms. Geissler credibly testified that the final penalty assessment was $12,721.73. Ms. Geissler's calculations for the penalty assessment were performed in accordance with the requirements of section 440.107(7) and rule 69L-6.027. Mr. Henshaw did not provide any testimony during the proceeding, but rather made the statement that there was no point in fighting the allegation, "everything is correct."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that All Florida failed to secure workers' compensation coverage and assessing a penalty of $12,721.73 against All Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 1, 2011, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 19, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On April 1, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-110-1A to LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On April 1, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-110-1A to LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $12,985.36 against LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. 4. On April 29, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was. personally served on LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC failed to answer the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment or request a proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 12, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 22, 2010, the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on July 30, 2010, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 19, 2011, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the Order Closing File which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Petition for Administrative Review, the Notice of Withdrawal, and the Order Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On May 12, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-139-D1 to JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. 2. On May 12, 2010, the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. A copy of the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On June 22, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-139-D1 to JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $88,153.87 against JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. 4. On June 23, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On July 20, 2010, JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING filed a Petition for Administrative Review (“Petition”) with the Department in response to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On July 30, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-139-D1 to JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. 7. On August 12, 2010, the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On January 19, 2011, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-139-D1 to JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $18,003.57 against JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. 9. On January 28, 2011, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by United States mail on JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING. A copy of the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On May 19, 2011, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-2577. 11. On May 26, 2011, JODY L. GRIFFIS, D/B/A GRIFFIS CUSTOM FRAMING filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12, On May 31, 2011, an Order Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 11-2577. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue An administrative complaint filed January 19, 1994, alleges that Respondent, Rafael Feliu, violated various provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. by diverting commission funds to himself, by operating as a broker without a valid broker's license and by collecting money in a real estate brokerage transaction without the consent of his employer. The issue in this case is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rafael Feliu (Feliu) is now and was at all times material a licensed real estate broker-salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0538613 pursuant to Chapter 475, F.S. His most recent license was issued, effective 5/3/93, c/o Century 21 Progressive Realty, Inc., 11301 So. Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Between May 1990 and March 1993, Feliu was engaged as a broker- salesperson with Angel Gonzalez of Century 21 Nuestro Realty Co., in Orlando, Florida. The parties' independent contractor agreement, dated May 29, 1990, provides for a sixty percent sales commission to Feliu. On November 28, 1992, Feliu solicited and obtained a contract for the purchase of vacant land and the construction of a house. The real estate commission was to be paid in installments. The buyer under the contract was a friend of Feliu, Luis Rodriguez. Feliu and Rodriguez made an arrangement that Rodriguez would receive a rebate of the commission. While the broker, Angel Gonzalez, denies that he agreed to the arrangement, he does admit that he saw a break-down of disbursement of the commission provided by Feliu and that he signed a letter, prepared by Feliu, describing that break-down, including the rebate to Rodriguez. The first commission check, in the amount of $8,750.00 is made to Century 21 Nuestro and is dated June 4, 1993. Feliu delivered the check to Angel Gonzalez with a handwritten break-out of disbursement, including a $1000 rebate and a $2500 rebate (one-half the agreed $5000) to Luis Rodriguez. Gonzalez refused to disburse the commission as indicated on the break- out, but rather sent Feliu a check on June 8, 1993, for $4554.30, representing his usual share of the commission. The second installment of the commission was paid approximately ten days later. Feliu went to the contractor responsible for paying the commission and asked him to make the check to him, Rafael Feliu. Thus, the second check in the amount of $8750.00 is dated June 18, 1993 and is made out to Rafael Feliu. By this time Feliu had left Century 21 Nuestro and was working with another company. Feliu cashed the check and made the disbursements to Luis Rodriguez. He also retained his share of the balance along with sums of $449.93 and $128.00 that he claimed Nuestro Realty owed him on other sales. He sent the balance, $274.77, to Angel Gonzalez with a letter describing in detail the disbursement of the $8750.00 and explaining that he, Feliu, handled the disbursement because Gonzalez had not complied with regard to the first half of the commission.
Recommendation Based on the evidence presented and discussed above, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order dismissing the allegations of violation of section 475.25(1)(b), F.S. (Count I), finding Respondent Rafael Feliu guilty of the remaining counts of the complaint, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0856 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. & 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. & 6. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 4; otherwise rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Rejected as contrary to the law (see paragraph 13). - 14. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Rafael S. Feliu 2260 Whispering Maple Drive Orlando, Florida 32837 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent filed frivolous motions to introduce additional evidence after the final hearing and after proposed recommended orders had been filed that needlessly increased the cost of litigation, justifying the imposition of sanctions under Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division") filed Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, on April 21, 2008. The Motion is as follows: The Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, by and through its undersigned counsel, requests the Administrative Law Judge to enter an order awarding the agency reasonable attorney’s fees in this case and states: The case was originally referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 2007. Pursuant to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions and after extensive discovery, the Parties filed their respective exhibit list.(1) The Final Hearing was held on January 16, 2008. At the Final Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ruled certain evidence would not be considered because it was not timely filed. Counsel for Mr. Tamalavich, Ms. Jane Letwin, subsequent to the Final Hearing, filed three additional motions entitling the Division of Retirement to receive attorney’s fees and costs. These motions were frivolous. Jurisdiction was specifically reserved within the Proposed Recommended Order to “consider Respondent’s claim of entitlement to fees and costs.” Each motion sought to supplement the record by introducing exhibits not timely filed. (See: Exhibit-1, dated March 4, 2008; Exhibit-2, dated March 14, 2008; Exhibit 3, dated March 21, 2008.) The filing of the motions as described in paragraph two (2) above, constitute grounds for the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs as set forth in Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), which reads: All pleadings, motions, or other papers filed in the proceeding must be signed by the party, the party’s attorney, or the party’s qualified representative. The signature constitutes a certificate that the person has read the pleading, motion, or other paper and that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the presiding officer shall impose upon the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. An objection to each motion was filed by counsel for the agency, asserting the exhibits were outside the record in the case and would prejudice the agency. (See: Exhibit-4, dated March 5, 2008; Exhibit-5, dated March 14, 2008; Exhibit-6, dated March 24, 2008.) Counsel also requested attorney’s fees and costs. In support of this motion, counsel has attached affidavits as to attorney’s fees with an activity record for the time spent responding to the motions. The amount totals $915.00. Footnote: Respondent agreed to all of Petitioner's exhibits. In response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees, the Respondent filed Petitioner’s (sic) Response to Motion for Attorney’s Fees (in which references to the parties are based on their status in the original retirement case, not the current fees case), stating that: PETITIONER [sic] THROUGH UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, files this Response to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 120.569 (2 © [sic], Fla. Stats. 2007, and would state: The initial Motion to Supplement the Record was filed in good faith as a response to the urging by the Administrative Law Judge who encouraged the efforts to locate the missing payroll record. The entire episode which occurred during the trial hearing is described in detail in the Motion and was filed in good faith. The goal was to ascertain the facts in the interests of justice, not for delay or bad faith. The Motion to Take Notice was also filed in good faith based on the existence in the record of the documents which were the subject of the motion. The Second Motion to Supplement the Record was also filed in good faith and in the interests of justice, as the very document found in another case with similar issues which involved the Respondent Division of Retirement was thought to be of great interest to the court. This document was probative of the very concepts proposed by Petitioner that the notice mandated by the governing rule had to be presented in writing to the employee upon his initial hiring in order to satisfy the requirements of the FRS’ own rules and regulations. This document was not prejudicial to the Respondent since it must have been aware of the document well before the hearing. Proposed Recommended Orders were filed in the retirement case, DOAH Case No. 07-2759, on February 25, 2008. Respondent filed the initial Motion to Supplement the Record on March 4, 2008. The Motion requested consideration of documents discovered by Mr. Tamalavich's wife after the hearing. Respondent's Counsel stated that questions raised at the hearing prompted the search for more documents and made her believe that she had been instructed to have her client do so. The specific questions related to whether or not Mr. Tamalavich worked during a certain month. The Division's witness testified that she had no way of knowing the answer from her records and that it would be best to ask Mr. Tamalavich. Respondent's Counsel did not explain her failure to ask her client to search for records to support his allegations prior to filing the case or during discovery. She also maintained that, as used in her motion, "[t]he terminology 'supplementing the record' was meant to be the equivalent to a motion to reopen the record." See Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order on Respondent’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, page 2. In the second post-hearing pleading, Respondent's Counsel filed a Motion to Take Notice. Respondent's Counsel argued that the exhibit that was the subject of the Motion had not been withdrawn during the hearing and that it was re- submitted after she checked the DOAH website and found that it had been logged in by the DOAH Clerk at 3:56 p.m. on the day before the hearing began. As explained in the Recommended Order: That [tender] was untimely under the requirements of the pre-hearing order [that required submission of a list of exhibits no later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing]. In addition, when an objection to the introduction of the exhibit was raised at the hearing, the record reflects, on page 47, line 20 of the transcript, that the tender was withdrawn. At the final hearing, Respondent's Counsel said she did not intend to have her words construed as withdrawing the tender of an exhibit because "I couldn't withdraw something that had been filed in the record." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 12, lines 2 - 4. 5. The third pleading, the Second Motion to Supplement the Record, was filed to introduce an exhibit used in a DOAH case that was decided in January 2004. Respondent's Counsel conceded that she could have possibly requested and received the document while she was preparing her case, explaining,"[H]owever, notwithstanding, I certainly didn't file this motion to harass or delay." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 23, lines 23 - Petitioner asserted that the only effect of the motion was "to harass my client and take up additional, take up my time." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 23, lines 8 - 9. The Petitioner submitted an Affidavit As To Attorney's Fees from a 26-year member of The Florida Bar, attesting to the reasonableness of a fee of $150.00 an hour for a total of 6.1 hours, or a total fee of $915.00. According to the activity sheet, the attorney’s reviewed each motion, consulted with the client on each, and prepared the three responses. During the telephone final hearing, Respondent's Counsel suggested that the work performed should have taken no more than .5 hour because the responses to the three motions were essentially the same. She also asserted that the imposition of any sanction is improper due to her good faith, subjective belief that she was pursuing a just result for her client, and that the reasonable inquiry required, under Subsection 120.569(2)(e), was "not [whether] the motion is legally permissible," [b]ut whether or not the facts you are advancing in the motion are, indeed accurate." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 44, lines 14 - 18. The Division established that there was no legal justification for the three post-hearing/post-proposed recommended order motions filed in DOAH Case Number 07-2759. There is no dispute that the three pleadings at issue were signed by Respondent's Counsel, not by the Respondent, nor by Respondent's co-counsel who entered a Notice of Appearance, but did not otherwise participate in the proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner was required to relocate its business in 1986 as the result of a public taking of the property where the business was situated. Petitioner sought relocation benefits from Respondent's relocation assistance program. The program is operated by Respondent in accordance with authority contained in Sections 339.09(4) and 421.55(3), Florida Statutes. Various requests by Petitioner for payment of relocation benefits in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act were denied by Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, Petitioner sought a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes concerning Respondent's denial of the requested reimbursements. At the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, evidence was presented regarding Respondent's denial of benefit payments of $1,324 for advertisement expense in a telephone directory; $1,370 for installation of an exhaust fan at the new facility; $2,405 for fees for consultative services from an attorney; $1,200 for the alleged loss of employee time spent in conferences with Respondent personnel regarding relocation; $1,500 for expense of a second search for a suitable relocation site; and $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area in the new facility. With the exception of Respondent's denial of the claim for $1,035 for consultant fees, Respondent's denials were found to be appropriate in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Such a finding of appropriateness also equates to a finding of substantial justification for denial for purposes of this proceeding. A recommended order was issued in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, finding denials of all requested reimbursements to be appropriate with the exception of Respondent's denial of the request for $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area. Payment of this latter amount was recommended as constituting an authorized reimbursement under legal provisions governing the relocation program. On December 26, 1988, Respondent entered a final order awarding Petitioner $1,035 for this consultation fee expense. Other claims for reimbursement by Petitioner in the amount of $10,414.17 were paid by Respondent, prior to the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, in the course of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. That court adopted a settlement stipulation of the parties regarding those claims which expressly reserved attorney fees in regard to those issues for later determination by that court. Petitioner presented no evidence with regard to those claims at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. At the final hearing in the present proceeding, Respondent offered testimony that confusion concerning payment of those claims resulted from the death of the attorney handling the case for Respondent. Respondent initially denied the claims in the absence of the deceased attorney's records in the mistaken belief that the matter had been resolved earlier in the circuit court condemnation proceeding. Upon learning such was not the case, payment of the claim and effectuation of settlement of the issue was made in the circuit court case and occurred shortly after Petitioner's request for hearing in DOAH Case No. 88- 0778T. The circumstances surrounding the initial denial of payment of this benefit by Respondent substantially justify Respondent's denial and constitute a sufficient basis to deny Petitioner's recovery of fees or costs related to this payment recovery in this administrative proceeding. The proof submitted at the final hearing in this cause establishes that Petitioner's counsel expended between 55 and 70 hours of time in his representation of Petitioner's attempts to recover all denied benefits in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Counsel's average hourly rate was $125. However, the fee arrangement between client and counsel was a "modified or combined contingency fee" permitting any recoverable attorney fees to serve as the primary source of payment of counsel's fees. Petitioner was not bound by the agreement to pay counsel's fees beyond amounts determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer in the administrative case or the judge in the circuit court matter. To that extent, attorney fees in this cause that have been incurred by Petitioner may be considered "contingent." Documentation submitted by Petitioner includes an affidavit from its president which simply recites the status of Petitioner as a small business party, but sets forth no specifics of a fee arrangement with counsel. The affidavit of Petitioner's counsel establishes a minimum number of hours (55) and dates of work performed by counsel, and states that his hourly rate is $125. Calculating the number of hours by the hourly rate, one reaches a total fee amount of $6,875. Counsel's affidavit does not address which of the various benefits sought to be recovered was the subject of any particular expenditure of time. Although the relocation benefits sought to be recovered were separable subjects, allocation of time expended with regard to a particular benefit recovery effort is not established by the evidence. Testimony of William Robert Leonard was also offered by Petitioner to support the reasonableness of a legal fee amount of $10,000 for Petitioner's counsel. While Mr. Leonard opined that he normally would not support a $10,000 attorney fee as reasonable for a $1,000 recovery, the circumstances of this case were different because "[y]ou are arguing with the state." Petitioner attempted to establish through further testimony of Leonard that the enormity of the resources of the government of the State of Florida justify such a fee because cost considerations prevent private litigants from engaging in costly and protracted proceedings in matters of limited recovery. Leonard did not address allocation of the requested attorney fee among the various benefits for which recovery was sought, choosing instead to premise his opinion regarding reasonableness of a $10,000 attorney fee upon "the amount of time counsel was required to respond to a state agency." Leonard's testimony is not credited with regard to reasonableness of a $10,000 fee for recovery of the $1,035 relocation benefit due to his professed lack of knowledge of certain administrative law procedures; the failure of his testimony to address the nature or difficulty of tasks performed by counsel for Petitioner; and his concurrence with the assertion that his opinion of such a fee was based in part upon a "gut reaction." No evidence was submitted to support the reasonableness of the cost amount of $250 requested as a witness fee for Mr. Leonard's participation in the proceeding. Petitioner seeks recovery of $448.50 in costs associated with the transcript of final hearing had in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T and a $480 expert witness fee in conjunction with testimony of E. Scott Golden, an attorney, at that final hearing. The testimony of Mr. Golden in that proceeding related to his provision of relocation site advice to Petitioner and drafting of legal documents for Petitioner. Petitioner did not prevail with regard to recovery of relocation benefits related to the expense of Mr. Golden's services.
